Legal Research
Cases
Taleb v The Queen

Taleb v The Queen

Case [2014] VSCA 96 22 May 2014

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0226

SAMMY TALEB	Applicant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NEAVE and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	1 April 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT	22 May 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2014] VSCA 96
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Taleb (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Stuart, 6 November 2013)

---

SENTENCING – Application for leave to appeal sentence – One charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence in a commercial quantity – Total effective sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and six months – Application of parity principle where co-offender’s sentence is very lenient or manifestly inadequate – No justified sense of grievance on the part of the applicant in the trial judge’s application of the parity principle – No error in the application of general deterrence – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Application refused – Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462 – Wilson v The Queen (2000) 116 A Crim R 90.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R Melasecca	Melasecca Kelly & Zayler
For the Respondent	Mr D A Trapnell QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NEAVE JA
WEINBERG JA:

On 25 October 2013 the applicant, Sammy Taleb, pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence in a commercial quantity. He was sentenced on 6 November 2013 as follows:

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Maximum	Sentence
1	Trafficking in a drug of dependence — commercial quantity [s 71AA of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic)]	25 years	2 years and 9 months
Total Effective Sentence:		2 years and 9 months
Non-Parole Period:		1 year and 6 months
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		1 day
6AAA Statement:		4 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years
Other orders: Disposal Order; Forensic Sample Order

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

Circumstances of the offending

In March 2011 the police commenced an operation named Retread, which focussed on the applicant’s older brother, Ahmad Taleb (‘Ahmad’), who was conducting a substantial drug trafficking business. A number of covert operatives collected evidence that Ahmad and his associates were trading in drugs. The applicant and one of Ahmad’s other brothers, Haissem, were involved in the operation. The prosecution of all the offenders was based on this evidence and on phone calls between the various participants.

Three of Ahmad’s associates were convicted in the Magistrates’ Court of trafficking. For the purposes of this appeal it is unnecessary to describe their personal circumstances or the sentences imposed on them.

Ahmad Taleb, the applicant and three others were sentenced in the County Court after pleading guilty to various offences.

Ahmad Taleb, who was aged 38 when he was sentenced, pleaded guilty to trafficking in a commercial quantity of amphetamine, methylamphetamine, MDMA and cannabis, between 28 June and 11 November 2011. In his sentencing reasons,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Taleb v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taleb v The Queen [2014] VSCA 96
Case: [2014] VSCA 96
Decision Date: 22 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taleb v The Queen, the applicant was convicted of trafficking in a drug of dependence in a commercial quantity. The dispute pertained to the applicant's total effective sentence of two years and nine months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and six months. The applicant sought leave to appeal the sentence, arguing that the parity principle should have been applied due to the lenient sentence received by a co-offender. The application was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in applying the parity principle. The applicant argued that the co-offender's sentence was so lenient or manifestly inadequate that it created a justified sense of grievance. Additionally, the applicant contended that the trial judge had misapplied the principle of general deterrence and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to determine if these arguments had merit and whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court found no error in the trial judge's application of the parity principle, as there was no justified sense of grievance on the part of the applicant. The court also found that the trial judge appropriately considered the principle of general deterrence and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court relied on previous cases, such as Green v The Queen and Quinn v The Queen, to support its decision. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The High Court made it clear that the applicant's total effective sentence and non-parole period would stand, and no further appeal could be made regarding the sentence. The court's decision emphasised the importance of the trial judge's discretion in sentencing and the limited circumstances in which the parity principle should be applied.

Orders